Fortnite HACK AND CHEATS

Rahul Mukerjea was also allegedly facing threat from his step mother Indrani which he had conveyed to his father Peter Mukerjea through an email sent about a year before the murder of his girlfriend Sheena Bora.

CBI which is probing the murder of Bora has attached this conversation in the supplementary charge sheet which mentions that Peter knew that his wife Indrani has allegedly issued threats to his son Rahul and her daughter from her first marriage Sheena, sources said.

Fearing threats, Sheena and Rahul had taken a backup of all the mails, messages, documents for safekeeping, they said.

In the mail dated April 13, 2011, Rahul told Peter, “On several occasions, we have received threats from Indrani…I have protected myself and Sheena by documenting mails, history, conversations and messages included.”

He wrote that he had put these for safekeeping and threatened to make them public “should anything happen to either Sheena or me”, the mail alleged.

CBI has alleged that Peter was actively involved in the conspiracy to murder Sheena which was hatched by Indrani, her second husband Sanjiv Khanna and driver Shyamvar Rai who all have been arrested by the agency.

Peter was also told by Rahul that he was not sure if messages coming from his father’s phone were actually sent by him or not.

Rahul had accused his father of allegedly using the email accounts of Indrani and Khanna’s daughter Vidhie to send mails to Sheena, it alleged.

“Please also remember that you yourselves involved young Vidhie in all of this by using her email account to send emails in the first place and by giving her the phone when Sheena wanted an explanation from Indrani,” he said in the mail.

Rahul had told Peter that Indrani was “bad-mouthing” him and also pressuring a media company where he was trying.

“After all the things your wife has said about me, and all the threats she has made, and after all the attempts she has made to disrupt my progress, telling a load of lies about me and trying to have me thrown out from my flat. Then also pressuring the (media company) people,” he had told Peter in his mail which has been attached by CBI in the charge sheet.

CBI had mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet that both Peter and Indrani wanted separation of Rahul and Sheena who were in a relationship.

The agency has submitted the charge sheet, running into 500 pages and listing 52 witnesses.

“We have mentioned in the charge sheet that the process of separating Sheena and Rahul had started since 2009 and as they did not budge, the duo (Indrani and Peter) planned to kill her,” a CBI official said.

Peter was arrested on November 19 for his alleged role in the murder conspiracy. He was in CBI custody for two weeks. Indrani is the prime accused in the case.

On November 19, CBI had filed a charge sheet against Indrani, Khanna and Rai for murdering Sheena and disposing of her body.

As per the charge sheet, Indrani and Peter were unhappy with Sheena and Rahul’s relationship, and they had told their friend Pritul Sanghvi that ‘this relationship was not correct’.

Sheena (24), Indrani’s daughter from an earlier relationship, was allegedly strangled in a car by Indrani on April 24, 2012 and her body was burnt before it was dumped in a forest in adjoining Raigad district.PTI

The Indian Consulate in Sydney has refused to make public records related to alleged fake passport issued to Chhota Rajan which enabled his stay in Australia, citing four exemption clauses from the RTI Act without giving any reason to substantiate them.

Venkatesh Nayak of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative had sought from the Indian High Commission in Australia details of the passport issued to Rajan on the basis of forged identity.

The application was forwarded to the mission in Sydney where the travel document was issued to Rajan.

The Mission refused to divulge the details citing Sections 8(1)(a), (e), (g) and (h) of the RTI Act.

“… The First Appellate Authority has sent the email that the CPIO rejected my RTI application under Sections 8A, 8E, 8G and 8H. There is no attachment or email form the CPIO that was supposedly sent to me. To which email address, I am not sure,” Nayak claimed.

Section 8(1)(a) alone covers seven grounds to deny information — sovereignty and integrity, defence, strategic, scientific, economic interests and foreign relations of the state and incitement to commission of crimes. Section 8(1)(e) relates to fiduciary relationship, 8(1)(g) exempts information from disclosure which may endanger the life and safety of any person and 8(1)(h) the disclosure impede the investigation, prosecution process or arrest of the offenders.

Several high courts have given orders that mere invoking exemptions is not enough and the public authority must give sufficient reasons to justify denial of information.

“This reply from the Sydney Consulate amounts to shielding officers who may have issued the passport without due diligence or perhaps even through corrupt means. The CBI has already registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against unnamed officials in this case. So there is a great amount of public interest in making the identity of these officials public instead of protecting them,” Nayak alleged.

A forged RTI reply furnished seven years ago from his office triggered harassment of a public information officer of Delhi government who finally found refuge in the CIC which has ordered the Chief Minister’s Office to inquire into the matter.

The then Public Information Officer Harjeet Singh, who processed RTI responses at ADM, North District here, had to use the Act to clear himself of the serious charge levelled against him.

In 2008, a response was issued from his office to L D Chopra even when no RTI application was filed. The response was unsigned saying that certified copies of a will have been provided without due process of law.

On the basis of this unsigned response, Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi government started proceedings against Singh who had now moved as an administrative officer in Delhi Pollution Control Committee.

Singh started filing RTI applications seeking details of the RTI response which triggered action against him but no reply was furnished to him. Even earlier orders of the CIC did not help. Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu took stern view on it.

“The reply served its purpose to help land grabber and its serious side effect was that one responsible officer of public authority suffered humiliation and insults as he faced investigations for no fault of him causing mental depression to entire family members,” he said.

Acharyulu said it is not clear till now which public servant has issued the letter dated SPIO/DC/(N)/RTI/5/ID No.360/928 dated February 14, 2008 which is fabricated.

“It appears that officer who signed the letter is known to others, but all of them are shielding him by putting forward the ‘non traceable’ plea. The Government has responsibility to probe this through an appropriate investigating authority,” he said.
“The Commission finds this as a very bad case of non-

response to RTI request, where the appellant is not a common citizen, but an officer of the same government, who became the victim of a falsely generated RTI response in the absence of any RTI request,” Acharyulu said.

He noted in the order that neither the PIOs nor the ADMs of north and central districts, have cared to take serious note of Commission’s orders in this case, which reflects misuse of RTI by officers.

“The appellant had suffered prolonged humiliation, harassment and insults with different kinds of investigations by police, ACB and others. In spite of many notices, the PIOs did not attend,” he said.

Issuing showcause notices, the Information Commissioner asked ADMs of central and north why a penalty should not be imposed on them and why disciplinary action cannot be recommended against each of them.

“The Commission also requires that the Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi to take serious note of this criminal act of falsification of record and then hiding the crime under the cover of illegal excuse that ‘RTI record not traceable’,” he said.

The Commissioner said if for any jurisdictional issue, the GNCTD finds it is not within their purview to investigate this, they should request the Union Home Ministry to take up the investigation.